Search Results

Search found 1638 results on 66 pages for 'multithreading'.

Page 47/66 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • Threading Problems in ActionScript 2.0?

    - by yar
    Is it possible to have concurrency problems (thread competition) in an onEnterFrame method in ActionScript 2.0? I have written this cheesy code as a guard: if (!busy) { // I suspect some threading problems: is that even possible in flash busy = true; movePanels(); busy = false; } but this is no assurance against thread competition. If so, how can I do a basic semaphore/lock? Note: I suspect threading problems in my app, but if they're impossible, I'll check my code differently.

    Read the article

  • A member variable's hashCode() value is different

    - by Jacques René Mesrine
    There's a piece of code that looks like this. The problem is that during bootup, 2 initialization takes place. (1) Some method does a reflection on ForumRepository & performs a newInstance() purely to invoke #setCacheEngine. (2) Another method following that invokes #start(). I am noticing that the hashCode of the #cache member variable is different sometimes in some weird scenarios. Since only 1 piece of code invokes #setCacheEngine, how can the hashCode change during runtime (I am assuming that a different instance will have a different hashCode). Is there a bug here somewhere ? public class ForumRepository implements Cacheable { private static CacheEngine cache; private static ForumRepository instance; public void setCacheEngine(CacheEngine engine) { cache = engine; } public synchronized static void start() { instance = new ForumRepository(); } public synchronized static void addForum( ... ) { cache.add( .. ); System.out.println( cache.hashCode() ); // snipped } public synchronized static void getForum( ... ) { ... cache.get( .. ); System.out.println( cache.hashCode() ); // snipped } }

    Read the article

  • boost thread pool

    - by Dtag
    I need a threadpool for my application, and I'd like to rely on standard (C++11 or boost) stuff as much as possible. I realize there is an unofficial(!) boost thread pool class, which basically solves what I need, however I'd rather avoid it because it is not in the boost library itself -- why is it still not in the core library after so many years? In some posts on this page and elsewhere, people suggested using boost::asio to achieve a threadpool like behavior. At first sight, that looked like what I wanted to do, however I found out that all implementations I have seen have no means to join on the currently active tasks, which makes it useless for my application. To perform a join, they send stop signal to all the threads and subsequently join them. However, that completely nullifies the advantage of threadpools in my use case, because that makes new tasks require the creation of a new thread. What I want to do is: ThreadPool pool(4); for (...) { for (int i=0;i<something;i++) pool.pushTask(...); pool.join(); // do something with the results } Can anyone suggest a solution (except for using the existing unofficial thread pool on sourceforge)? Is there anything in C++11 or core boost that can help me here? Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • Apply [ThreadStatic] attribute to a method in external assembly

    - by Sen Jacob
    Can I use an external assembly's static method like [ThreadStatic] method? Here is my situation. The assembly class (which I do not have access to its source) has this structure public class RegistrationManager() { private RegistrationManager() {} public static void RegisterConfiguration(int ID) {} public static object DoWork() {} public static void UnregisterConfiguration(int ID) {} } Once registered, I cannot call the DoWork() with a different ID without unregistering the previously registered one. Actually I want to call the DoWork() method with different IDs simultaneously with multi-threading. If the RegisterConfiguration(int ID) method was [ThreadStatic], I could have call it in different threads without problems with calls, right? So, can I apply the [ThreadStatic] attribute to this method or is there any other way I can call the two static methods same time without waiting for other thread to unregister it? If I check it like the following, it should work. for(int i=0; i < 10; i++) { new Thread(new ThreadStart(() => Checker(i))).Start(); } public string Checker(int i) { public static void RegisterConfiguration(i); // Now i cannot register second time public static object DoWork(i); Thread.Sleep(5000); // DoWork() may take a little while to complete before unregistered public static void UnregisterConfiguration(i); }

    Read the article

  • java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread for multiple threads

    - by Kaustubh Ranjan Singh
    static class solver implements Runnable { static calculator(problem){ //Some code if(condition) {solver s = new solver(newproblem); new Thread(s).start();} } Public solver(int newproblem) { this.problem = newproblem ; } public void run() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub calculator(promblem); } } i am having a big array maze of 100x100 and i am trying to solve it and i am getting an error java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread(after running a code for some times). How can solve this , How can i use ExecutorService i think that will solve the problem or i want something like thisIf Number of generated threads4K then stop the first 100 threads

    Read the article

  • DispatcherOperations.Wait()

    - by Mark
    What happens if you call dispatcherOperation.Wait() on an operation that has already completed? Also, the docs say that it returns a DispatcherOperationStatus, but wouldn't that always be Completed since it (supposedly) doesn't return until it's done? I was trying to use it like this: private void Update() { while (ops.Count > 0) ops.Dequeue().Wait(); } public void Add(T item) { lock (sync) { if (dispatcher.CheckAccess()) { list.Add(item); OnCollectionChanged(new NotifyCollectionChangedEventArgs(NotifyCollectionChangedAction.Add, item)); } else { ops.Enqueue(dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action<T>(Add), item)); } } } I'm using this in WPF, so all the Add operations have to occur on the UI thread, but I figured I could basically just queue them up without having to wait for it to switch threads, and then just call Update() before any read operations to ensure that the list is up to date, but my program started hanging.

    Read the article

  • Neat way of calling InvokeRequired and Invoke

    - by ho
    I seem to remember seeing some neat way of calling InvokeRequired and Invoke to avoid repeating too much code in every event handler but I can't remember what that was. So does anyone know a neat way of writing that code? Preferably for VB.Net 2005.

    Read the article

  • How do I wait for all other threads to finish their tasks?

    - by Mike
    I have several threads consuming tasks from a queue using something similar to the code below. The problem is that there is one type of task which cannot run while any other tasks are being processed. Here is what I have: while (true) // Threaded code { while (true) { lock(locker) { if (close_thread) return; task = GetNextTask(); // Get the next task from the queue } if (task != null) break; wh.WaitOne(); // Wait until a task is added to the queue } task.Run(); } And this is kind of what I need: while (true) { while (true) { lock(locker) { if (close_thread) return; if (disable_new_tasks) { task = null; } else { task = GetNextTask(); } } if (task != null) break; wh.WaitOne(); } if(!task.IsThreadSafe()) { // I would set this to false inside task.Run() at // the end of the non-thread safe task disable_new_tasks = true; Wait_for_all_threads_to_finish_their_current_tasks(); } task.Run(); } The problem is I don't know how to achive this without creating a mess.

    Read the article

  • Cocoa multhithreads, locks don't work

    - by Igor
    I have a threadMethod which shows in console robotMotorsStatus every 0.5 sec. But when I try to change robotMotorsStatus in changeRobotStatus method I receive an exception. Where I need to put locks in that program. #import "AppController.h" @implementation AppController extern char *robotMotorsStatus; - (IBAction)runThread:(id)sender { [self performSelectorInBackground:@selector(threadMethod) withObject:nil]; } - (void)threadMethod { char string_to_send[]="QFF001100\r"; //String prepared to the port sending (first inintialization) string_to_send[7] = robotMotorsStatus[0]; string_to_send[8] = robotMotorsStatus[1]; while(1){ [theLock lock]; usleep(500000); NSLog (@"Robot status %s", robotMotorsStatus); [theLock unlock]; } } - (IBAction)changeRobotStatus:(id)sender { robotMotorsStatus[0]='1'; }

    Read the article

  • pthread_create followed by pthread_detach still results in possibly lost error in Valgrind.

    - by alesplin
    I'm having a problem with Valgrind telling me I have some memory possible lost: ==23205== 544 bytes in 2 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 156 of 265 ==23205== at 0x6022879: calloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so) ==23205== by 0x540E209: allocate_dtv (in /lib/ld-2.12.1.so) ==23205== by 0x540E91D: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.12.1.so) ==23205== by 0x623068D: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.2.5 (in /lib/libpthread-2.12.1.so) ==23205== by 0x758D66: MTPCreateThreadPool (MTP.c:290) ==23205== by 0x405787: main (MServer.c:317) The code that creates these threads (MTPCreateThreadPool) basically gets an index into a block of waiting pthread_t slots, and creates a thread with that. TI becomes a pointer to a struct that has a thread index and a pthread_t. (simplified/sanitized): for (tindex = 0; tindex < NumThreads; tindex++) { int rc; TI = &TP->ThreadInfo[tindex]; TI->ThreadID = tindex; rc = pthread_create(&TI->ThreadHandle,NULL,MTPHandleRequestsLoop,TI); /* check for non-success that I've omitted */ pthread_detach(&TI->ThreadHandle); } Then we have a function MTPDestroyThreadPool that loops through all the threads we created and cancels them (since the MTPHandleRequestsLoop doesn't exit). for (tindex = 0; tindex < NumThreads; tindex++) { pthread_cancel(TP->ThreadInfo[tindex].ThreadHandle); } I've read elsewhere (including other questions here on SO) that detaching a thread explicitly would prevent this possibly lost error, but it clearly isn't. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Where to begin with multi-threaded programming with c++?

    - by zoke
    I'm trying to implement my own IRC client as a personal proejct and I realized I needed a way to read and write from the socket at the same time. I realized I could have a reading thread which reads from the socket in the background and puts data in a queue and I could have another thread which writes data from a queue to the socket. However I have no idea on how to start with multithreaded programing or how to do it with c++. Where do I go from here?

    Read the article

  • C# Express 2010 Multi-Threading

    - by Chris Evans
    Hi, I have a windows app that I have been running in c# Express 2008 for a year and have been trying to convert it over the last few days to 2010. The problem I am having is it is a multi-threaded application that has to run a series of code every second. What it does is have a main thread, that calls 3 worker threads, waits for them to finish then does some additional processing, sleeps till 1 second and runs again. The problem is part of the code can call a web service that takes 8 seconds to respond, so this bit of code gets called using ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem. The problem is when running in 2010 when this part of the code gets called the main thread continues to run but when it awakens the sub threads it hangs until the Threadpool method finishes running. This never happens in 2008. Any suggestions? So far I put that bit of code in it's own thread rather than using Threadpool but same issue.

    Read the article

  • VB.net avoiding cross thread exception with extension method

    - by user574632
    Hello I am trying to implement a solution for updating form controls without using a delegate. I am attempting to use the 1st solution on this page: http://www.dreamincode.net/forums/blog/143/entry-2337-handling-the-dreaded-cross-thread-exception/ Imports System.ComponentModel Imports System.Runtime.CompilerServices Public Module MyInvoke <Extension()> _ Public Sub CustomInvoke(Of T As ISynchronizeInvoke)(ByVal control As T, ByVal toPerform As Action(Of T)) If control.InvokeRequired Then control.Invoke(toPerform, New Object() {control}) toPerform(control) End If End Sub End Module The site gives this as example of how to use: Label1.CustomInvoke(l => l.Text = "Hello World!") But i get 'l' is not declared error. As you can see im very new to VB or any OOP. I can get the second solution on that page to work (using delegates) but i have quite a few things to do in this thread and it seems like i would need to write a new delegate sub for each thing, which seems wasteful. What i need to do is select the 1st item from a combobox, update a textbox.text with the selected item, and pass the selected item to a function. Then wait for x seconds and start again, selecting the second item. I can get it to work in a single threaded application, but i need the interface to remain responsive. Any help greatly appreciated. EDIT: OK so changing the syntax worked for the example. However if i change it from Label1.CustomInvoke(Sub(l) l.text = "hello world!") (which worked just fine) to: Dim indexnumber As Integer = 0 ComboBox1.CustomInvoke(Sub(l) l.SelectedIndex = indexnumber) I get a cross threading error as though i didnt even use this method: Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'ComboBox1' accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on. So now im back to where i started? Any further help very much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • ThreadExceptionEventHandler and invoking delegates

    - by QmunkE
    If I assign a ThreadExceptionEventHandler to Application.ThreadException, why when I invoke a delegate method using a control on the main application thread are any exceptions thrown by that delegate not triggering the event handler? i.e. static void Main() { ... Application.ThreadException += new System.Threading.ThreadExceptionEventHandler(Application_ThreadException); Application.Run(new Form1()); } static void Application_ThreadException(object sender, System.Threading.ThreadExceptionEventArgs e) { Console.Error.Write("A thread exception occurred!"); } ... private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { Thread syncThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.ThrowException)); syncThread.Start(); } private void ThrowException() { button1.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { // Not handled by ThreadExceptionEventHandler? throw new Exception(); })); } The context on this is that I have a background thread started from a form which is throwing an unhandled exception which terminates the application. I know this thread is going to be unreliable since it is network connectivity reliant and so subject to being terminated at any point, but I'm just interested as to why this scenario doesn't play out as I expect?

    Read the article

  • Basic QT Event handling / Threading questions ?

    - by umanga
    Greetings , I am new to QT (4.6) and have some basic questions regarding its event mechanism.I come from Swing background so I am trying to compare it with QT. 1) Does Event-processing-loop run in seperate thread? (like EventDispatch thread in Swing) ? 2) If we open several 'QMainWindow' do they run in several threads? 3) Whats the best way to run an intensive process in a seperate thread? (like SwingWorker in Swing ? ) 4) If intesive-process runs in a seperate thread ,is it possible to call UI methods like update(),repaint() from that process? thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Fast way to pass a simple java object from one thread to another

    - by Adal
    I have a callback which receives an object. I make a copy of this object, and I must pass it on to another thread for further processing. It's very important for the callback to return as fast as possible. Ideally, the callback will write the copy to some sort of lock-free container. I only have the callback called from a single thread and one processing thread. I only need to pass a bunch of doubles to the other thread, and I know the maximum number of doubles (around 40). Any ideas? I'm not very familiar with Java, so I don't know the usual ways to pass stuff between threads.

    Read the article

  • Will this make the object thread-safe?

    - by sharptooth
    I have a native Visual C++ COM object and I need to make it completely thread-safe to be able to legally mark it as "free-threaded" in th system registry. Specifically I need to make sure that no more than one thread ever accesses any member variable of the object simultaneously. The catch is I'm almost sure that no sane consumer of my COM object will ever try to simultaneously use the object from more than one thread. So I want the solution as simple as possible as long as it meets the requirement above. Here's what I came up with. I add a mutex or critical section as a member variable of the object. Every COM-exposed method will acquire the mutex/section at the beginning and release before returning control. I understand that this solution doesn't provide fine-grained access and this might slow execution down, but since I suppose simultaneous access will not really occur I don't care of this. Will this solution suffice? Is there a simpler solution?

    Read the article

  • What happens to an instance of ServerSocket blocked inside accept(), when I drop all references to i

    - by Hanno Fietz
    In a multithreaded Java application, I just tracked down a strange-looking bug, realizing that what seemed to be happening was this: one of my objects was storing a reference to an instance of ServerSocket on startup, one thread would, in its main loop in run(), call accept() on the socket while the socket was still waiting for a connection, another thread would try to restart the component under some conditions, the restart process missed the cleanup sequence before it reached the initialization sequence as a result, the reference to the socket was overwritten with a new instance, which then wasn't able to bind() anymore the socket which was blocking inside the accept() wasn't accessible anymore, leaving a complete shutdown and restart of the application as the only way to get rid of it. Which leaves me wondering: with no references left to the ServerSocket instance, what would free the socket for a new connection? At what point would the ServerSocket become garbage collected? In general, what are good practices I can follow to avoid this type of bug?

    Read the article

  • Multiple things at once (Threads?)

    - by Jonathan
    All, What is a really simple way of having a program do more than one thing at once, even if the computer does not necessarily have multiple 'cores'. Can I do this by creating more than one Thread? My goal is to be able to have two computers networked (through Sockets) to respond to each-other's requests, while my program will at the same time be able to be managing a UI. I want the server to potentially handle more than one client at the same time as well. My understanding is that the communication is done with BufferedReader.readLine() and PrintWriter.println(). My problem is that I want the server to be waiting on multiple readLine() requests, and also be doing other things. How do I handle this? Many thanks, Jonathan

    Read the article

  • how to implement a message pump in Non-UI thread in .net?

    - by Benny
    how to implement a message pump in non-ui thread? what i want is that the message can be an object or a command, say an Action/Func, etc. do i have to use separate queue for different type of message? say one queue for object, one queue for Action/Function? Given that the type of messages vary, how to implement it?

    Read the article

  • Mouse move and thread

    - by bsebi
    When I move the mouse over the window, the program runs much faster (cc. 3 times). This is a real time webcam .Net/Mono application running on a MacBook. On Windows works perfect. Is this maybe a power saving function of the laptop? The code: Thread t = new Thread(Foo); t.Priority = ThreadPriority.Highest; // I've tried without priority too, doesn't matter t.Start(); ... void Foo() { while (true) { ++k; // then write k to the window somehow } }

    Read the article

  • Pointer inside a struct / thread

    - by bruno
    Hi! I have this warning "warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type " in this line: data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; - void print_message_function ( void *ptr ) { dt *data; data = (dt *) ptr; printf("Dentro da thread Numero0: %ld\n", data->L_norm_NewBlock); pthread_exit(0); } typedef struct data_thread { long L_norm_NewBlock; int Bsize_X; int Bsize_Y; int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; long L_norm_OrigBlock; } dt; void function() { int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; pthread_t thread1; dt *data1; pthread_attr_t attr; pthread_attr_init(&attr); //Fills structure data1 = (dt *) malloc(sizeof(dt)); data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; data1->L_norm_NewBlock=0; data1->Bsize_Y = Bsize_Y; data1->Bsize_X = Bsize_X; pthread_create(&thread1, &attr, (void *) &print_message_function, (void *) &data1); } I want to get rid of that warning, and the values i get inside the thread are wrong. For example data1-L_norm_NewBlock=0; in the thread guives me a differente value (not 0 like it should be).

    Read the article

  • REST WCF service locks thread when called using AJAX in an ASP.Net site

    - by Jupaol
    I have a WCF REST service consumed in an ASP.Net site, from a page, using AJAX. I want to be able to call methods from my service async, which means I will have callback handlers in my javascript code and when the methods finish, the output will be updated. The methods should run in different threads, because each method will take different time to complete their task I have the code semi-working, but something strange is happening because the first time I execute the code after compiling, it works, running each call in a different threads but subsequent calls blocs the service, in such a way that each method call has to wait until the last call ends in order to execute the next one. And they are running on the same thread. I have had the same problem before when I was using Page Methods, and I solved it by disabling the session in the page but I have not figured it out how to do the same when consuming WCF REST services Note: Methods complete time (running them async should take only 7 sec and the result should be: Execute1 - Execute3 - Execute2) Execute1 -- 2 sec Execute2 -- 7 sec Execute3 -- 4 sec Output After compiling Output subsequent calls (this is the problem) I will post the code...I'll try to simplify it as much as I can Service Contract [ServiceContract( SessionMode = SessionMode.NotAllowed )] public interface IMyService { // I have other 3 methods like these: Execute2 and Execute3 [OperationContract] [WebInvoke( RequestFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, ResponseFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, UriTemplate = "/Execute1", Method = "POST")] string Execute1(string param); } [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] [ServiceBehavior( InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.PerCall )] public class MyService : IMyService { // I have other 3 methods like these: Execute2 (7 sec) and Execute3(4 sec) public string Execute1(string param) { var t = Observable.Start(() => Thread.Sleep(2000), Scheduler.NewThread); t.First(); return string.Format("Execute1 on: {0} count: {1} at: {2} thread: {3}", param, "0", DateTime.Now.ToString(), Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString()); } } ASPX page <%@ Page EnableSessionState="False" Title="Home Page" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Site.master" AutoEventWireup="true" CodeBehind="Default.aspx.cs" Inherits="RestService._Default" %> <asp:Content ID="HeaderContent" runat="server" ContentPlaceHolderID="HeadContent"> <script type="text/javascript"> function callMethodAsync(url, data) { $("#message").append("<br/>" + new Date()); $.ajax({ cache: false, type: "POST", async: true, url: url, data: '"de"', contentType: "application/json", dataType: "json", success: function (msg) { $("#message").append("<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;" + msg); }, error: function (xhr) { alert(xhr.responseText); } }); } $(function () { $("#callMany").click(function () { $("#message").html(""); callMethodAsync("/Execute1", "hello"); callMethodAsync("/Execute2", "crazy"); callMethodAsync("/Execute3", "world"); }); }); </script> </asp:Content> <asp:Content ID="BodyContent" runat="server" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent"> <input type="button" id="callMany" value="Post Many" /> <div id="message"> </div> </asp:Content> Web.config (relevant) <system.webServer> <modules runAllManagedModulesForAllRequests="true" /> </system.webServer> <system.serviceModel> <serviceHostingEnvironment aspNetCompatibilityEnabled="true" multipleSiteBindingsEnabled="true" /> <standardEndpoints> <webHttpEndpoint> <standardEndpoint name="" helpEnabled="true" automaticFormatSelectionEnabled="true" /> </webHttpEndpoint> </standardEndpoints> </system.serviceModel> Global.asax void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e) { RouteTable.Routes.Ignore("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}"); RouteTable.Routes.Add(new ServiceRoute("", new WebServiceHostFactory(), typeof(MyService))); }

    Read the article

  • pthread_join from a signal handler

    - by liv2hak
    I have a capture program which in addition do capturing data and writing it into a file also prints some statistics.The function that prints the statistics static void* report(void) { /*Print statistics*/ } is called roughly every second using an ALARM that expires every second.So The program is like void capture_program() { pthread_t report_thread while(!exit_now) { if(pthread_create(&report_thread,NULL,report,NULL)){ fprintf(stderr,"Error creating reporting thread! \n"); } /* Capturing code -------------- -------------- */ if(doreport) usleep(5); } } void *report(void *param) { while(true) { if(doreport) { doreport = 0 //access some register from hardware usleep(5) } } } The expiry of the timer sets the doreport flag.If this flag is set report() is called which clears the flag.I am using usleep to alternate between two threads in the program.This seems to work fine. I also have a signal handler to handle SIGINT (i.e CTRL+C) static void anysig(int sig) { if (sig != SIGINT) dagutil_set_signal_handler(SIG_DFL); /* Tell the main loop to exit */ exit_now = 1; return; } My question: 1) Is it safe to call pthread_join from inside the signal handler? 2) Should I use exit_now flag for the report thread as well?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >